As Tolkien said in some lectures and conversations (according to Shippey) a lot of what he regretted or “cordially disliked” about Shakespeare simply had to do with the Bard’s success. His presentation of Faerie, the operation of prophecy, etc was SO successful that trying to present a Tolkienian (or Dunsanian) view was a very difficult uphill battle: hard for some readers to grasp. Tolkien said he heard from people who had read and enjoyed The Hobbit and LOTR, yet who somehow persisted in the delusion that Legolas and Elrond (for example) were not man-sized but diminutive, despite what’s clearly written in Tolkien’s books. Such was the power of Shakespeare (and Spencer) to solidify a cultural image of Faerie. It was hard for JRR to overcome those misconceptions.

Shakespeare was writing for the masses and created plays to be relatable to everyone from the nobility while JRRT was mostly writing for himself. I would definitely call The Lord of the Rings a type of literature written for the educated upper classes of the time while Shakespeare was written for the common man.

@striker8961

7 ай бұрын

The Hobbit is a children's book.

@MistbornPrincess

7 ай бұрын

I agree to a degree. There was soooo much Shakespeare wrote for the common people.

@johnisaacfelipe6357

7 ай бұрын

The simple difference is that Tolkien wrote a novel, Shakespeare wrote a script for plays, this is why Shakespeare's writing isn't that deep, its evocative, but it lacks the substance and material you would find in most novels, much less when you compared Shakespeare's works to that of Tolkien's legendarium which is akin to a compendium of interconnected stories all unfolding into one grand narrative.

@maluse227

7 ай бұрын

@@striker8961 For Tolkein's children which I think is an important distinction, and one that wasn't supposed to be part of his main secondary world but ended up being that way because Tolkein couldn't get away from it.

@isawamoose

7 ай бұрын

Shakespeare is full of esoteric/hermetic philosophy shout-outs, and hell, the main way we get to interact with Shakespeare is because it was PRINTED in a big ass folio unlike Dekker/Marston/etc It gets codified and fine tuned editing -- it's meant to be read and guess who can read? Not the average commoner (still holds today, people don't have reading comprehension for shit)

I think at least some of the witches' prophecies in "Macbeth" are tests of character, which Macbeth utterly fails. An alternate timeline could have King Duncan and his sons dying in battle or of disease; Macbeth then takes the throne without murder. Macbeth and his wife then have a daughter who marries Banquo's son; Macbeth wouldn't be the direct father of a king but the ancestor of many kings. Macbeth even considers this: "If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me. Without my stir." However, his ambition and unwillingness to wait drive him to disloyalty and cause his doom. This also reminds me of how Galadriel and Faramir are tempted by the Ring but can resist its lure, thus showing their true nobility.

@brucealanwilson4121

3 ай бұрын

Lady Macbeth's father had been King Malcom's brother, so as her husband Macbeth would, if anything happened to Duncan and his sons, have a colorable claim to the throne. (That's why she hesitates to kill Duncan because he looks so much like her father---it was a family resemblance.)

@MsJaytee1975

3 ай бұрын

@@brucealanwilson4121 In 11th century Scotland the maternal line also provided a claim to the throne.

@MsJaytee1975

3 ай бұрын

The timeline where Duncan dies in battle is known as reality.

@brucealanwilson4121

3 ай бұрын

@@MsJaytee1975 I know. That's why so many Scottish peerages can pass to a woman, while few English ones can.

@honourabledoctoredwinmoria3126

2 ай бұрын

​@@MsJaytee1975 He died in battle against troops almost certainly sent by Macbeth. But it sounds like he brought it on himself, because he was invading Macbeth's lands.

When Tolkien says he "cordially dislikes" it literally means "intensely dislikes". I realize that "cordially" by itself means "in a friendly way", but when talking specifically about disliking something it usually means "intensely". Tolkien, being a philologist, would definitely know and appreciate this.

@father_flair

Ай бұрын

Pretty sure "cordially" (like Cordellia) comes from Latin "cor", i.e. "heart." So I guess JRR had a hearty dislike?

No matter how much we may love the world that Tolkien created and the stories he set within it we should never take his opinions or ideas as gospel, any more than any other human being. My own personal favourite director is Stanley Kubrick but I have never understood why he chose Eraserhead as his favourite film.

@Jess_of_the_Shire

7 ай бұрын

So true! I agree with a lot of his fantasy tenants, but he's definitely not right 100% of the time

@Quirderph

7 ай бұрын

Lynch and Kubrick had some similar sensibilities, so I can kinda see it. (Then again, I also like Eraserhead, so maybe I am biased.)

@Theomite

7 ай бұрын

In some fairness, that was Kubrick's opinion in 1978. I don't recall ERASHERHEAD being on his all-time Top 10 list.

@ThreadBomb

4 ай бұрын

@@Theomite Yes, a liking voiced once in a magazine interview is not the same as a serious evaluation.

@waltergold3457

2 ай бұрын

@@Jess_of_the_Shire Nor are you, Jess (right 100% of the time). It's "tenets" and not "tenants" as in your poetic malapropism. 🙂 Seriously, though, it's the mark of a good channel when the comments are at least as worthwhile as the video itself. 💐 But, nonetheless, your shaky faith in Tolkien troubles me - perhaps it's time for you to leave the Shire on your own hero's quest. 🙂

I absolutely love Tolkien, but he was certainly firmly rooted in his ideas, and he was unbending in how he defined good fantasy. His crushing critiquing of his own friends, especially CS Lewis, shows that he had a mentality of "I know what's right and nobody else does". I feel like I would have loved to have heard him talk at length on the subject, but I'm certain that I would have had several arguments with the man. Great video!

@JonBrase

2 ай бұрын

To be fair to Tolkien, I really like CS Lewis, but he really wasn't good at subtle worldbuilding or at borrowing from life or from earlier work in a smooth way. Many people have complained about how the religious themes in Chronicles of Narnia hit the reader over the head, but the same is true of the themes from Greco-Roman mythology: Jesus at least gets called "Aslan" and shows up as a lion, while *Bacchus*, of all people, shows up *as Bacchus* 😒.

@Checkmate1138

2 ай бұрын

Tolkien would have been quite the Redditor 😂

I really enjoyed this. It always amuses me that Tolkien was annoyed with Shakespeare for not writing like, er, Tolkien 😂 for my part I love both my Warwickshire lads.

Like with most brilliant writers/storytellers, Tolkien‘s biggest problem was that he couldn’t appreciate stories that were very different from his own. He was so wrapped up in his version of fantasy being the BEST version of the genre that there could possibly be, that he just couldn’t appreciate other stories and writers that went too far off of the path that he went down when writing stories.

@johnisaacfelipe6357

7 ай бұрын

To be a good writer, you have to be able to appreciate good literature and bad literature, Shakespeare wasn't writing novels, Shakespeare was writing scripts for plays.

@thelostroad

7 ай бұрын

I think Tolkien seems to just exaggerate a lot of things he says, including in "On Fairy Stories." Not to say that he should or shouldn't, it's just part of his personality but everything he says has to be taken with that in mind. I find it's more about how they don't agree with or what he wouldn't do. You'll see a lot of headlines about things he hates like Disney, Shakespeare, George Macdonald, etc but it's hard to tell if he really does.

@thelostroad

7 ай бұрын

For example, many believed that Tolkien hated Narnia despite being friends with C.S. Lewis. This could be because of his well known dislike of allegory and Narnia is known for use of allegory. However, I think it's more than that, after all, Tolkien has shown appreciation of them calling them *deservedly* very popular. And there probably were other things he had exaggerated or understated and/or just only judged based on his own works but I think he recognized that about the latter and a lot of things he didn't agree with other writers on is really kind of them having different purposes than him, and that fact being taken out of context a lot of the time as a result of his tendencies. As far as Shakespeare, I think it's kind of just this one project he had to do for a class or something, though he has made similar comments he made with Narnia, Disney, etc.

@Siegfried5846

5 күн бұрын

I hate the "fantasy" name, since it also is said for trash like Harry Potter and Game of Thrones. I would like to put JRR Tolkien and especially Shakespeare in another category.

@Siegfried5846

5 күн бұрын

@@thelostroad I never read the books, but the Narnia films were very bad.

I adore Tolkien but he had some snobbish qualities even later in life where he fixated in the use of language from other authors.

In his book _Witches and Jesuits_ Garry Wills proposes that the Scottish play was in fact a play about the Powder Plot. In other words, it was the 17th century equivalent of a movie of the week about a recent event.

@Jess_of_the_Shire

7 ай бұрын

Ooh, that's interesting!

@stephengray1344

7 ай бұрын

Interesting. I was always aware that there was some element of propaganda, since the king that MacBeth killed was an ancestor of James I/VI (and MacBeth was apparently a reasonably decent king), but Macbeth being inspired by Guy Fawkes and co gives it a whole level of extra depth that I never realised when studying it at achool.

@Kondoor249

7 ай бұрын

yes, and the queen seemed to think so as well. This is why Shakespear wrote Richard III, to make the crown happy after pissing them off with the Scottish Play (or so some people believe)

@metallsnubben

7 ай бұрын

@@stephengray1344 ...because of the typo I read the last words at "studying it at alcohol" haha. Contemplating Shakespeare while looking at the bottom of a pint

@Paldasan

7 ай бұрын

The Scottish play? Cue the Blackadder episode!

With regard to the witch-king's demise, I think it's worth noting that Merry, who struck the first blow, being a halfling, was also not considered a 'man' by the conventions of the day. So it was kind of a 'no-man-am-I' combo.

Three witches theme is much older that Macbeth, it is Greek Moirai or Norse Norns the embodiment the great power of fate. Very interesting subject to investigation for scholars... A Midsummer Night's Dream is my first love.

@Siegfried5846

5 күн бұрын

You can see how he had been conditioned by the church to demonise our native religion by turning the norns into the three witches.

there is an adorable and also bitter-sweet irony in that Tolkien's work, in its fleshed-out grandeur and - albeit embued with mythical aura - harsh definiteness, feels so much more cerebral and not quite filled with the childlike kind of wonder as the chaotic place of A Midsummer Night's Dream

My favorite Shakespeare is the tempest since it was read to me in the 5th grade and I've seen it performed live several times. I also had the pleasure of seeing Sir Ian McClellan perform Richard III live from the second row about 30 years ago It was awesome.

Hi there, I enjoyed the video, and have been a subscriber for some time. I thought I’d chime in. I’m a PhD student looking at Shakespeare’s oeuvre, generally as it is performed in the plays, through Tolkien’s lens of Faerie stories, to show that the plays are Fairy Stories, which render arts of enchantment. I’m glad to see that the theme resonates with your interest. My master’s thesis dove into the subject examining Hamlet’s purpose of playing in dialectic with On Fairy Stories’ purpose of true/ good fairy tales.

@kenzodiaze....

7 ай бұрын

hey that's p interesting, thank you for sharing ur expertise!

@Jess_of_the_Shire

7 ай бұрын

That sounds fascinating! Shakespeare's fantasy is such an interesting topic.

@VerticalBlank

7 ай бұрын

Past tense of 'dive' is 'dived'. A 'dove' is a bird.

@DiabeticAdventurer

7 ай бұрын

@@VerticalBlank while in England I would more often agree with you, however both are accepted, and North America uses dove more often.

@marieroberts5664

7 ай бұрын

​@@DiabeticAdventurerand in American English, 'dove' as past tense of 'dive' rhymes with 'stove'. The bird rhymes with 'love'.

I would love to take Tolkien to a modern production of Wicked and hear his thoughts. It certainly used the fantasy elements as part of a larger theme and hints and larger world building. It Lao has great stage effects which help, rather than hurt, the immersion. So I wonder if he would like it. I would guess probably not, but I would be very interested in hearing his thoughts on the matter

@Jess_of_the_Shire

7 ай бұрын

Stage effects have definitely advanced! I think he would have been awed by it, but knowing how stubborn he was, he'd likely find something to pick on haha

@marieroberts5664

7 ай бұрын

​@@Jess_of_the_Shireif he saw Aladdin, Army landlubber that he was, he'd likely complain of seasickness...

@robofwonder

7 ай бұрын

He'd probably have hated how far from the book that the musical went.

@Quirderph

7 ай бұрын

@@robofwonder Would that have been the book Wicked or the original The Wonderful Wizard of Oz?

@robofwonder

7 ай бұрын

@@Quirderph Just from WIcked. Honestly, I much prefer the musical to the book. But I suspect Tolkein would not have agreed!

I understand Tolkien's point though I disagree with it. I don't think the intent of theater is to achieve the kind of believability and immersion into a secondary world that Tolkien was looking for. When I go to a play, I know I'm looking at actors. I can see the curtain, the edge of the stage, the wires, the trickery, the low tech costumes and props, etc. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the actors' performance and whether they are effectively telling the story. Theater requires a suspension of disbelief and a willingness on the audience's part to ignore the obvious un-reality of the whole experience. But I think that's part of the fun. As for my favorite Shakespeare play, I'm a big fan of A Midsummer Night's Dream. I got to play Francis Flute in a production of that show a few years ago.

Writers can be playfully spiteful. For example, CS Lewis put a lamppost in Narnia specifically because Tolkien said such a thing didn’t belong in fantasy, or so I’ve heard.

10:00 -- RE: The Scottish Play; So Yeah, this is worth mentioning as an aside. "Macbeth" has been performed by theatrical troupes all over the world, *but the best Film version ever was done by?* A: Akira Kurosawa, in 1957's "Throne of Blood". Kurosawa makes several significant changes to the Play, including reducing the number of witches down to 1, and also making an effort to present the witch more like a Ghost than a living human at all. However, it is incredible how well the story can be re-interpreted for a feudal Japanese setting. Kurosawa did this with more than one play by Shakespeare. In the 1980s, he did an epic re-interpretation of "King Lear" called "Ran" (and this one is in color, too!), but *also* in 1957 he did a film called "The Lower Depths" based on the 1902 play by Maxim Gorky, and also set in feudal Japan. The two films from 1957 offer a pretty wide contrast between them. In many ways, I prefer "The Lower Depths" for its simplicity (most of the action occurs in a single ramshackle shed or the courtyard just outside of it) as well as its presentation of realistic human patterns of behavior. However, when it comes to "popcorn" pure entertainment value, special effects, and battle sequences, "Throne of Blood" wins.

@jamespfp

2 ай бұрын

^^ Oh Yeah, why did this matter again? "Throne of Blood" is also known by a direct translation of the Japanese title, which was "The Spider Web Castle". Another of the changes that Kurosawa made was to give the Forest around "Spider Web Castle" more agency: it is full of hidden or secret pathways, it is inhabited by the spirit of the Ghost Witch, and if "it" wants you to get lost within it on the way to the Castle, you will. It's not quite "Ents" but it is a good part of the way towards the approach Tolkien took with LOTR. The inhabitants of the Castle, the nominal feudal Lord (analogous to the King) relies on the mysteries of the Forest around it to keep the Castle safe from attack by any army, until (of course) this assumption is proved to be a fallacy.

Tolkien forgot "what fools these mortals be" and went on to accuse drama of being silly. As for elemental power, I wonder about his take on Syccorax and Ariel, as well as Prospero's borrowing of their forces?

It's pretty interesting, because I just finished watching a video about George R.R. Martin criticizing Tolkien's work because he didn't value the same things as Martin, and wondered why he was criticizing Tolkien over not writing what he wanted to write, but now I see that Tolkien did the exact same thing with Shakespeare. In the end I think every artist should just make the art they want to make and not criticize others for not making that art, because if they did, the new artist would have no reason to make the art because it had already been done.

@NeroSparda99

28 күн бұрын

I mean George’s criticisms are incredibly silly though, and although Tolkien does suffer from the same issue of “his stuff isn’t like my stuff” Tolkien raised some points. When George suggested we should know what Aragorn’s tax policy was I laughed out loud

@NeroSparda99

28 күн бұрын

Also George otherwise loves Tolkien and was directly inspired by him, Tolkien with Shakespeare? Not so much lol

@Siegfried5846

5 күн бұрын

George R.R. Martin does not hold a candle to Tolkien. He is a slug. I don't like looking at him.

@mattmorehouse9685

4 күн бұрын

@@NeroSparda99 Have you read Brett Devereaux's That Dothraki Hoard? Devereaux is a historian and says that Martin fundamentally misunderstood the steppe and plains people he supposedly based the Dothraki off of. Like how he has them eating horse meat as a staple, when steppe peoples' main food was mutton and plains people mainly ate bison. Devereaux also says that the Dothraki are culture less, aside from one song, their entire society is based on pillage, rape and murder.

(27:00) Fantasy vs realism and writing 400 years ago (unfair comparison). Thunderous point. Well done.

There's definitely a Shakespeare influence on any modern author who sets a story in a medieval Europe setting (or fictional analog of it), whether consciously or subconsciously. Even a lot of the dialog in LOTR is very Shakespearean.

I've always been aware and taken interest in how Tolkien viewed and basically rewrote the prophecies, but the idea of the witches indicating larger powers at play is absolutely fascinating! Moving aside his harsh views towards theater, in regards to his thoughts on fantasy being best suited to books and not visual mediums it is important to consider that visual mediums were a bit more limited in his time and I wonder how he would feel about how recent fantasy stories have been done in film and tv. I mean, he wouldn't exactly appreciate the raunchiness of The Legend of Vox Machina but he might take interest in how much it has been able to depict with animation. The evolution of fantasy is a core aspect of the comic book series DIE by Kieron Gillen and Stephanie Hans (the essays and bonus bits at the end of the volumes are a treasure trove for nerds btw), and Tolkien himself even shows up in the first volume without getting explicitly named because lawyers are a thing, but it was pretty obvious given how a giant eagle showed up at one point haha. An entire video on SFF world building could be really cool because one could argue that there are some writers who forget that world building isn't synonymous with storytelling and that a rich world is meant to enrich a story first and foremost (Adrian Tchaikovsky talked extensively on world building in an episode of the podcast Breaking The Glass Slipper if you're interested). PS Ladyknightthebrave has a video titled "Love & Mend: Much Ado About Nothing" that I think you would greatly appreciate.

Tolkein didn't hate Shakespeare--or Drama. Tolkein hated modernity--and maybe the late Medieval period

@milfredcummings717

7 күн бұрын

Shakespeare was too modern for him. ☺

0:38 Till Burnham forrest walk to Dunsinane ... (distasteful Tolkien says "I can do better" and writes Treebeard chapters)

An William Shakespeare wrote for the boys in the pit, not the highminded people of today. We have decided his genius but in his day he was Jacqueline Susann. Love your thoughts. on the differences in these two authors. BTW yaever think the Witches in Macbeth might just possibley be inspired by the Three Fates?

@Jess_of_the_Shire

7 ай бұрын

I think that there are still plenty of "boys in the pit" around today, enjoying his works, especially when they're performed live. They're a riot! And I'm sure the witches did draw upon the Greek fates. The three witches is a trope that goes back all the way to the moirai and likely beyond. Definitely a topic for a future video.

@peterwindhorst5775

7 ай бұрын

@@Jess_of_the_Shire that and Shakespeare once wrote - "I have done thine mother" - making William the author the creator of a "your mamma joke."

@Siegfried5846

5 күн бұрын

@@Jess_of_the_Shire It is the church conditioning us to demonise our native religion.

I would say that Tolkien dabbled a bit in this more ambiguous form of storytelling in works such as "Roverandom" and "Smith of Whooton Major". He he also delved heavily (though not too greedily or too deep) into allegory in "Leaf By Niggle". They are well worth a read if you haven't. Also, awesome video.

Every time I hear “no man woman born can kill…”. My first thought is “Sire the Amazon army approaches “

@davidsachs4883

7 ай бұрын

I would disagree with the idea that Shakespeare should have limited his talents to writing. I hated reading Shakespeare in HS. I enjoy see it on stage.. My two favorite quotes for 12th night: at the end of the play my youngest niece rushed to where her older sister and I watched the play with standing room tickets and said to her sister “Thank you for giving up your ticket for me that play was great!” Then turning to me she said “You lied a Midsummer's night dream is a LOT better then this play”

@davidsachs4883

7 ай бұрын

My Favorite play: Comedy of Errors Honorable mentions 12th night Much to do about nothing As you like it Henry V For years my daughter’s and both of my brother’s daughters favorite was Midsummer. For all three girls it was the first we took them to see. The aforementioned brother’s favorite is King Lear and Henry IV parts 1&2

At the end of the Scottish play they put Duncan's son Malcolm Cammore on the throne. But Banquo's son Fleance the ancestor of the Stuarts and the Stuart King James, a lover of drama.

As a fan of both Shakespeare and Tolkien, I appreciated this very much. There is great value to Tolkien's beautifully in depth style of story-telling, but the same can be said of Shakespeare's style. I would argue that part of the reason they've both aged so well is because neither exclusively tied their work to a specific time in real world history. Yes, Tolkien had a highly detailed, very well thought out history in his books, but that history was separate from our own. Yes, Shakespeare did set his plays in specific times, but they're also written in such a way that they can be translated into other times. I've seen three versions of Much Ado About Nothing, and none of them were set in the time they had been written for. As a result, both are able to connect with people from incredibly different settings and times. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that setting a story in a particular historical time means it will age poorly, only that both of these authors used this dynamic to their advantage, intentionally or not. On a separate note, this comment section is a freaking gold mine.

@Siegfried5846

5 күн бұрын

Wagner is another great one

@pamdawkins13

5 күн бұрын

@@Siegfried5846 I don't know much about Wagner, but from what I do know... yeah, I can see it.

@Siegfried5846

5 күн бұрын

@@pamdawkins13 Check out the Ring of the Nibelung. You can't really see any good productions in life unless you're very lucky, but the metropolitan opera put out a good one that Otto Schenk worked on. You can also look at Arthur Rackham's wonderful illustrations.

Favorites: Tragedy - Hamlet Comedy - Much Ado about Nothing

Love your analysis! To me it feels as if Tolkien, the master landscape painter found his pictures at odds with Shakespeare, a master portraitist.

Absolutely love the direction you're going with this, Jess! I always feel smarter after watching your videos. Both your creative and academic acumen are truly starting to shine through. Eagerly anticipating whatever is next!

My favourite Shakespeare play has always been The Merchant of Venice especially after I saw it performed live at the Stratford theatre in Stratford Ontario.

@Jess_of_the_Shire

7 ай бұрын

I love that one! It was one of the things that inspired my parents to name me "Jessica"

Great analysis. Thank you, Jess. ❤

I wonder if there was a deeper beef with Tolkien in that whereas Tolkien shows a world of largely good and evil and exhorts us toward good, Shakespeare is a lot more grey, a lot more human. I seem to recall that was Tolstoy's problem with the bard anyhow. Great video by the way.

@Jess_of_the_Shire

7 ай бұрын

That's an interesting angle! It's possibly part of it. Tolkien was very big on his divinely happy "eucatastrophic" endings, and Shakespeare rarely allows things to be so black and white.

@mattmorehouse9685

7 ай бұрын

@@Jess_of_the_Shire How is the ending of Lord of the Rings divinely happy? I'd say it is much more bittersweet with the elves and dwarves going away and Frodo suffering from PTSD from the horrors he's witnessed. Sure Sauron is gone, but there are plenty of things to be unhappy about.

@Jess_of_the_Shire

7 ай бұрын

@@mattmorehouse9685 Tolkien intended his endings to be "euchatastrophe" was the opposite of a catastrophe. So, in the end, everything will go right. Even Frodo and the elves leaving Middle Earth fits into that description, because it was the "right" thing to happen. So perhaps "divinely happy" is a bit of a misspeak, but he did intend, at the end of the tale, for everything to be put entirely to right

@mattmorehouse9685

7 ай бұрын

@@Jess_of_the_Shire I suppose part of it is Tolkein's Catholicism and the idea that even the worst things happen for a reason. That and he wanted to show the impact of Frodo's journey on his psyche since he went through WW1 and knew that there were scars even long after the fight ended.

@JonBrase

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, Shakespeare has a lot in common with a lot of modern Hollywood directors that I have little respect for: technically brilliant, but given to depressing tragedies and raunchy comedies.

A fascinating reflection - thanks. I played Oberon when at university so have a particular interest! I love both Tolkein and Shakespeare. I hope I don't have to choose! :)

Jess, this was fascinating and brilliant - in less than 30 minutes you really explored and explained not only the magic of theatre and how it's physical constraints make it different from books, but also how our psyche and the way we think is absolutely so different now than it was in Shakespeare's time and earlier. ❤

Jess of the Shire! I'm totally enchanted! 🤩

11:26 - And also Merry the Hobbit, who is also no 'man' (Pippin said it on himself at the beginning of Vol 3).

What a great reflection on both writers, so insightful! =D

When a friend of mine played Rosalind in their late teens, the "costume change" between Rosalind mode and Ganymede mode was just tossing a codpiece on over a sundress, and it was AMAZING.

@26:00 These next two minutes are such a good perspective. Well explained!! 👍

Jess, beware of the difference between "tenets" and "tenants." The one is a guiding principle, the other pays rent.

Fantastic deep dive!! Very much enjoyed this 👍 .... I appreciate the time and effort you put into this! Thank you for sharing!! 😁❤

Many of the people whose creations we love nevertheless hated the works of *other* people whose creations we loved. We'd better start consolidating our feelings on this right away if we haven't already, because it will definitely continue.

Shout out to theater people, pretty excellent *Scottish play* analysis and interp in this video!

Very interesting video! I remember doing a Shakespeare skit for school talent show. I was Puck and my friend was Peaseblossom. So much fun. Then at 17 I was very much drawn to Shakespeare’s works and various movies of them. Enjoyed that immensely! Now when I was younger my Dad used to recite the Misty Mountain poem to me from the Hobbit. And Gil Galadriel is an elven king… My family loved Tolkien. And my Dad even used to read the hobbit on fridays to one of his high school math classes for good behavior. I’ve read LOTR and seen the movies. One thing I wanted to address was Faeries and Elves and power. You mentioned power as in having control over others but I also remember reading somewhere that Tolkien contrasted the “magic of the elves” with the kind of magic Saruman and Sauron are using. I think he said something like the real magic or power of the elves was “their art.” I think that went beyond just beautifully crafting items but also the art of preservation such as the life in the elven forest but I know that’s tenuous because Galadriel was also using her ring to help keep the beauty within Lothlorien. Yet whether or not Rivendell or Lothlorien of the movies are as Tolkien imagined them…I think the artists on the film make those places blend harmoniously with the surroundings of nature. And to me THAT would be a Great Magic. And yes to be fair I’m perfectly aware other elves were drawn to power Feanor *cough* chuckle. And that Galadriel herself “passed the test.” But I had the impression Tolkien saw the Art of the elves as a higher magic. And meant to contrast that with the magic that seeks power. But to be fair Tolkien is as full of contradictions and moods and riddles as Gandalf the gray. :-)

Of course the point can be made that Merry was not of men either, being a hobbit by race and had a hand in the killing of the Witch King by Eowyn

I find Shakespeare's use of language to be some of the most beautiful ever written. I have memorized some of his soliloquies and sonnets because I enjoy being able to access them at a whim. At the same time, I have to agree with Tolkien, his story telling falls short. Much of it is absurd and some downright disgusting: yes, I mean you, Titus Andronicus.

@Jess_of_the_Shire

7 ай бұрын

I almost feel like he didn't really care about the actual story too much haha. I think his goal was moreso beautiful, impactful language and scenes that would stick in your mind because of their absurdness, beauty or drama (which is optimized by them being performed onstage), rather than on a comprehensible story. It likely comes down to a difference in mediums and intent.

@sourisvoleur4854

7 ай бұрын

That makes sense, @braemtes23, since many or most of the stories he didn't write but borrowed from the existing pool of tales. So what he brought to the table was his language which as you say sparkles.

@johnweigel9761

7 ай бұрын

When I read Titus Andronicus, I thought of it as Shakespeare's "slasher" play, a stage equivalent to Friday the 13th movies.

@sourisvoleur4854

7 ай бұрын

@@johnweigel9761 Sort of Amityville meets American Pie

What a beautifully crafted and informative video. As a fan of both Tolkien and Shakespeare myself this is mind candy. Thanks for your diligent work to entertain and educate. I am subscribing to your channel, I need more of this content in my life. My favourite Shakespeare plays are Macbeth and A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Tolkien didn't like someone??! Unbelievable!

My favorite Shakespeare play is Twelfth Night: Or What You Will. I've dabbled in reading some George MacDonald, and it is interesting to see what 19th century British fantasy was like. It is interesting to see late 20th/early 21st century takes on that sort of fantasy, with interpretations like Neil Gaiman's in Stardust, or Susanna Clark's Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. I love Tolkien; but he could be an intractable opinionated curmudgeon, though he is our intractable opinionated curmudgeon. He was a little too consumed with Viking sagas and the Icelandic Eddas, where fantasy and the real world went hand in hand, rather than the more Celtic/British fairy relms separated a veil away from the real world. I see the value of both sorts of stories, and can't say one is empirically better than the other, and subjectively both have their place. I love your point on the historical context of James I of England/James VI taking the throne and his anti-witch policies. He is also behind the King James Bible, wanting a wholly English translation of the Bible. Shakespeare did well to cater to the new monarch's world view.

I haven't had much chance to see live theater, but I love televised theater as well as movies and TV with a theatrical feel. I find it interesting Tolkien felt creating a secondary world in theater was a step too far; while suspension of disbelief may take a bit more imagination when costumes/sets/effects aren't entirely realistic, I find putting in that effort as an audience member makes me feel more connected to the play/movie/show. It's also fun, like playing pretend as a kid.

9:00 "he was not born of woman" exactly, he was _cut out_ of woman's _corpse_

My personal favorite Shakespeare play is the Tempest, and honestly I think it comes the closest to truly being fantasy. The characters of Ariel and Caliban are both otherworldly on a level that neither Macbeth's witches nor Midsummer's fairies really achieve. The island on which the play is set is outside of established real-world locations like Scotland or Verona or wherever Shakespeare felt like setting his play today (even if the characters do hail from Naples). It still doesn't come close to Tolkien's secondary world, and I absolutely agree with your points that their goals were entirely different, and that judging Shakespeare's works by the standards of a genre that wouldn't exist for another 300 years or so is not exactly fair. But the fact that it is the closest Shakespeare ever came to fantasy is exactly why the Tempest became my favorite.

Your description of losing oneself in a world that is only happening on stage, is so apt. It's what makes theater geekdom possible, and so wonderful. The ancient Greeks believed that theater had a supernatural ability to engage and "enthuse" (literally to "fill with spirit") an audience. Considering that books weren't widely available to any but the very richest people, until the mid-19th century, and that the novel as a literary genre didn't really come into being in the English world, until the later 18th century, oral story telling, songs and/or acting out stories, was all there was. And the more people you had around when it was being done really well, the more everyone was excited by it. I'm really surprised that Tolkien didn't appreciate the theater more.

29:36 A Midsummer Night's Dream + As You Like It Both played in Oxford the summer I was there on a language course

Much Ado about Nothing would be my favorite play of the Bard. Sonnet 130 is by my favorite as well. Great video as always!

Thanks very much for this little gift to the world Jess. I thought the way you turned your expertise to develop this analysis was particularly clever and effective (I like Tolkien’s work very much, but it is - perhaps paradoxically- constrained by the 20th century world view of its creation. Shakespeare’s work on the other hand is still astonishingly timeless in a way that you could study and/or perform for a lifetime and still find generating new insights. And yes I agree with you, it is exactly because its inherent truth about the human condition constantly lives anew through the ephemeral medium of theatre and performance. Now THAT is real magic.)

Judging Shakespeare on the basis of only his works that have supernatural elements -- witches and fairys and such -- is not sufficient to "cordially dislike" him. But if your main tool is a hammer (building secondary worlds) everything you see is a nail. I love Tolkein but he was maybe a lousy literary critic.

Dear Jess, Sometimes you ask for suggestions. Here are two I would love to see. A deep dive into Joan of Ark. Mark Twains Joan of Ark is a lovely read. Bernard Shaws Play is awesome and there’s a few movies including an old silent film. Secondly, I believe you will love Puck of Pooks hill by Rudyard Kipling. It’s another book I wonder if Tolkien read. The basic story is two children get introduced by Puck to various historical characters from England. The characters tell their own stories so we get a fun history of the country. Theres a second book in this series called Rewards and Fairies. Also lovely to read. Thanks. I enjoy everything you make.

I was a bit disappointed that you didn't mention my favorite fantastic Shakespeare play, The Tempest!

My Freshman year we read both The Hobbit and Romeo and Juliet in English class.

It's okay, William, Tolkien was savaged by his share of critics: Harold Bloom found his prose "stiff" and "false archaic," while Edmund Wilson dismissed the Lord of the Rings as "juvenile trash." I fear that Bloom's criticism has some merit. "In the Houses of the Healing," Aragorn spends so much time talking about his lineage, one wonders where he found time to heal people (okay, okay, maybe he did most of the pontificating while they were out searching for Athelas). Aragorn seems particularly susceptible to this florid dialogue. In The Two Towers, he yammers on about having to part with his sword so much that I would not have been surprised that the instant after he entered Theoden's hall, one of the guardsmen said to the other: "Fetch a bunch of grapefruits Bothius, I wanna see how sharp this Wonderblade here is...." Yes, I know, I'm going to Udun for saying these things, to be tormented by Balrogs for all eternity... And I like Tolkien!

Whoa. I, admittedly, wasn't as exposed to Shakespeare growing up as many others, and had never thought of his works this deeply before. Looking forward to hearing more about those pre-Tolkienian fantasies, but I hope maybe you're able to focus on Shakespeare again sometime in another video too!

Wonderful essay!

What if Shakespeare's fairies got lost somehow and ended up living in the Burkittsville woods?

It is really unfair (if that is the proper word) to compare Shakespeare and Tolkien as one was an extraordinary master of the english language from 400+ years ago and the other was of the modern age whose style is almost classical biblical prose across time. Shakespeare is timeless, if Julius Caesar be performed as it was back in the 1600s or with actors in German Nazi uniforms against a backdrop of a brick wall or as a classic rendition of Midsummer Night's Dream performed in an outdoor theater in the woods on a midsummer eve or Taming of the Shrew performed by campy and talented male drag queen actors, which by the way was absolutely hilarious. Shakespeare spans the ages but Tolkien defines a specific age lost in the group collective subconscious, Both author's are to be celebrated for their genius of the English language, however both arise from different ages of history and should never be compared one to the other. Honor both for what they have given us and leave it at that.

Beautiful video and the way you explained it was poetic at the least. thanks now i see where both men were coming from. it is a question of perspective on each end.

Jess, I would posit that Shakespeare took a shortcut when it came to world building. The settings of his plays are all in his and his audience's version of (Middle) Earth. He does set a lot of his plays somewhere in Italy, Verona seems to be his go to vacation spot, while his historical plays are supposed to be in the country of origin... Caesar's Senate is definitely in Rome, while Cleopatra and the asp are somewhere in Egypt, and the Danes have just come back from fighting in Poland? So no need to reinvent the wheel, but as you said, the play was the thing, not the setting. For Tolkien, Arda itself, and Middle-earth in particular, was more than setting, it was a character, and brought a feeling that it was both fantastic and familiar "you speak of the green earth...a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it lightly under the light of day". I wish that you had identified the actors...Denzel Washington should still be recognizable to younger folk, but I bet more than a few couldn't quite place our own Gandalf, Sir Ian McKellen.

Tolstoy also criticized Will-found his plays immoral nonsense.

I love King Lear. I think Kurosawa's japanese adaptation Ran is also timeless cinema.

The Eowyn scene always gives me goosebumps!

I'm not terribly surprised, someone who worked on the dictionary and was a professor of Anglo-Saxon would have a few choice words for the Bard.

Hell yeah Mad Max Hamlet sounds dope

20:23 "They pull the strings behind the scenes..." Haha nice. Mind if I steal that for my own fantasy writing?

I must agree that high fantasy literature and theater are different creatures. Yes, Tolkien did a better job of crafting the story of the destruction of the Witch King of Angmar and the movement of the Ents than Shakespeare did with the death of Macbeth and the movement of the forest towards Dunsinane (sp?). Yet, would he have done this at all without having seen Macbeth first. Plus, Macbeth is may favorite Shakespeare play, since long ago I played a minor role, and it was a ton of fun. Shakespeare creates a great kind of art, fun art, in one way, and Tolkien's fantasy incites my imagination through a different kind of art. They both remain my favorites in their own right. Plus, I really did like C.S.. Lewis' taking us through a wardrobe, as that was a lot of fun, too...

I don't really have a favorite Shakespeare play. I'd much rather see it performed rather than reading any of his plays. I like his sonnets, but I'm by no means an expert.

I think on those fairies Don, Hill, Jr. And the Black Pill- where are their funerals?

I like Shakespeare's setting of the high middle ages. Because it gets rid of a lot of things that can crush a persons ability to act on his own powers: like technology and great empires. His work has been interpreted in lots of ways. Many with truth to them. On top of that he managed to make them both accessible to the uncultured masses and the very sophisticated ones. Which makes them realistic. Since in reality a common man without training may not see much of all the play's secrets/meanings but may see enough of the events around him to still understand key aspects and come to a correct conclusion. The educated one in such affairs can built on that base and see much more. Not many authors could/can do this.

The allusions to Macbeth in LOTR are quite amusing once you notice. Tbf The Witches, or rather the ghost of future Macbeth they conjured up, did specifically warn The King against Macduff.

@alanpennie8013

2 ай бұрын

Also he absolutely knew he was doomed once he saw the walking trees. Remember, "Blow wind, come rack, At least we'll die with harness on our back", because he really did believe The Witches and their prophesies. He just didn't yet know how it would happen.

Sorry, I had another paragraph!!! Tolkien, like Shakespeare, was reacting to something as well, although in a sense he was driven by what he saw as the the logical conclusion of scientific rationalism: The ugliness and even horror of the Industrial Revolution as embodied in the factories popping up in the pristine English countryside and his own personal experience of WWI. As you suggested, it's one leader of a major literary genre critiquing another leader of a major, but entirely DIFFERENT, genre. An apple criticizing an orange for not being an apple, but for a deeper reason than just that (an orange tree farmer cutting down an apple orchard he can plant more orange trees).

No English schoolboy will ever be a fan of the Bard of Stratford upon Avon (definatly not at my School). Admittedly now in my old age, I understand it a lot more and enjoy it.

If you're looking for non-Tolkien fantasy I've got a fairly obscure example for you: The Well of the Unicorn by Fletcher Pratt. It's got a Tolkien-style secondary world where magic works, though it was published several years before LotR. It also has a surprising number of queer characters for a book published in 1948. As for my favorite Shakespeare play, I've always been fond of the BBC's 1983 version The Comedy of Errors with Roger Daltry as the Dromios.

To be fair, Tolkien said he despised allegory wherever he could smell it.

Hey! Spoiler warning for Macbeth? 🙂

So basically Tolkien is mad Shakespear revealed to him magic was not real and he does not like tonal inconsistency even when it is intentional. A dude that can't stand writing styles that are not his own. Also you can figure out how MacBeth dies if you just know C-Sections. So there is that.

James I also believed that his house was descended from Banquo.

In a way I see some "shakespearian" influences in Tolkiens trually epic tale. The story of Grima Wormtounge is nearly a tragedy in the same scope as that of Richard III. He, Grima, is "a man of Rohan" in Theodens words. And in some ways must have proven his worth to become the kings chiefadviser. But in his lust for power (and Eowyn as "hinted" by Tolkien) he becomes an easy prey for Sarumans corruption. In a way Grima could describe himself and his fall into evil in Richards words - "...since I cannot prove a lover...I am determined to prove a villain".

What is the music playing in the very beginning? It's so familiar but i can't place it😭

I am a huge Shakespeare fan. I love his plays and poetry. One of my fondest memories is a visit to Stratford and singing with a player 'Sigh no more,' from Much Ado About Nothing. I don't think the people listening think back on it fondly, I am a terrible singer but I did know the song. My favourite play is King Lear, I love that play...I've seen it about 10 times. Both on TV and live. I also love Tolkien, I've read the books about 8 times and lost count of the times I watched them. I think that both Tolkien and Shakespeare are towering figures in Western literature. The third giant in Western literature is of course Jane Austin.

I wonder what Tolkien might have thought of Magic Realism literature like Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Jorge Luis Borges. It would be interesting to know whether he was aware of it at all. I love Fantasy and the immersive worlds it creates but I also really love how Magic Realism can ignite as much wonder and mystery at the real world.

@AnthonyAcriaradiocomix

7 ай бұрын

I know hed hate Italo Calvino, just on general principal.

I'd love to hear your opinion on Mervyn Peake and his Gormenghast trilogy.

It's funny to me that Shakespeare is basically Socrates to Tolkien's Aristotle. Like you could draw a direct line of influence from Shakespeare to Tolkien and yet Tolkien is so preoccupied with just critiquing him that he doesn't recognize how much they have in common. Reminds me of George Lucas.

Yet; Tolkien was separated from Shakespeare by 400+ years- as we still are... And growing... I really do not consider, J.R.R. the ultimate arbiter of Shakespeare. I rather think, he had difficulty understanding Will, as any of us modern lookers do, to then revolt against that which he, himself, did not understand...

"Theater is hostile to fantasy" -- All of the following animated fantasy features were released before _The Lord of the Rings_ Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) Pinocchio (1940) Fantasia (1940) Dumbo (1941) Bambi (1942) The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949) Cinderella (1950) Alice in Wonderland (1951) Peter Pan (1953) It seems to me that animation transcended the boundaries that Tolkien decried.

I used to have very similar opinions to Tolkein, even before I knew about him. I wanted fantasy to feel real, magic is unambiguously true and the secondary world the author created may not exist, but it could have. It's consistent and makes sense. But I learnt to appropriate different types of stories, ones where magic is less clearly real or the world isn't as detailed or makes sense because it isn't always what matters. Admittedly the stage is not my favourite form of art, but I know today this is just my personal preference and not a fundamental objective fact about art.

"Wow, the new king is an idiot." "Let's make a play for him!"